Harris v. City of Tuscaloosa
| Decision Date | 11 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 682 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 392,108 So. 768 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Fleetwood Rice, Judge.
Prosecution by the City of Tuscaloosa against John Harris for violation of a city ordinance. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Wright & Clark, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
S.H. Sprott, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the terms of a specified ordinance of the city of Tuscaloosa.
Assignments of error 1 and 2 have been rendered without merit by a corrected copy of the judgment entry, now appearing in the record. This shows that appellant did in fact plead to each of the charges carried in the complaint. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict returned.
The court had the right to sentence the defendant to 60 days at hard labor for the city as additional punishment to that imposed by the jury. Guin v. City of Tuscaloosa (Ala.App.) 106 So. 64.
Likewise the court was within its rightful province in sentencing the defendant to work out the fine and costs at the rate of 40 cents per day. Guin v. City of Tuscaloosa, supra.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
...and Nineteenth. Shuttlesworth has argued to us that the chief of police was not in the discharge of any legal duty. Harris v. City of Tuscaloosa, 21 Ala.App. 392, 108 So. 768, does not apply here; nor are People v. Papp, 19 Misc.2d 331, 185 N.Y.S.2d 907, and White v. Edmunds [1790], Peake 1......